On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 05:12:05PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:> > > Of course you can. Even the latest OpenLinux release (shipping 2.4.13-ac)> > > uses a libc4/a.out based installer fo space reasons. Not to forget the> > > old quake1 binary from some redhat 4.x CD I run from time to time :)> > > > OK thanks for the *substantial* answer. That was the reason I was asking about.> > Somehow this is of course surprising me of course.> > So why didn't you -test- the theory before suggesting it. It btw goes beyond> Libc4. Currently we have almost 100% compatibility back to libc 2.2.2. The> dated libc before that doesn't work because we dropped some very very> early obscure versions of a few syscalls.> > Is it too much to ask that you go and look through the syscall tables of> old and new kernels ?

For 2.5 I have some plans to make obsolete syscalls depend on CONFIG_COMPAT_*,this allows to compile big and bloated kernel for compatiblity and smallerkernels without that (e.g. for embedded devices). And in fact we have quitea loft of cruft that can go away for setups only having very modern userspace..